Pete Furman

Sedona’s new fees expected to lead the state – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council directed staff to continue with the process of possibly increasing development impact fees on Tuesday, Nov. 12, after hearing a staff report explaining that Sedona’s DIF fees were higher than those compared across Arizona.

No members of the public addressed council on the subject.

Finance director Barbara Whitehorn said staff had compared Sedona’s proposed fees against those of Flagstaff, Gilbert, Fountain Hills, Apache Junction and Kingman, which she said are “very different from us.”

“Apples to oranges is really what we found,” Whitehorn said. “A lot of cities don’t have development fees at all,” such as Cottonwood and Camp Verde, which use grants and capital plans to fund their capital projects, while other jurisdictions employ dedicated taxes, investment revenue or other sources. Whitehorn noted that Flagstaff uses four different sales taxes to fund its transit program alone.

“That’s certainly an option for a community, but it does mean that you’re using revenue from other revenue streams,” Whitehorn said. “It’s a philosophical difference.”

She described Gilbert, a Phoenix suburb with a population of 267,918, as having development fees “much closer to the proposed fees for the city of Sedona.” Fountain Hills, another suburb of Phoenix, with a population of 23,820, has fees that Whitehorn said were “fairly lower.”

“Their fees are also quite low,” Whitehorn said of Kingman, population 32,689, which revoked its development impact fees in 2011. “They felt like the impact fees might be influencing the decision of developers not to develop in Kingman.”

“I do think there was some good logic to this,” Whitehorn said in regard to Sedona’s proposed increase, which would more than double existing fees, if passed.

Responding to Councilman Brian Fultz, Whitehorn said fees are intended to cover a portion of city spending on capital programs. She estimated that the fee-eligible portion of capital spending over the next 10 years will amount to $3.1 million for police projects, $4.7 million for parks projects and $12.3 million for streets projects, for a total of $20.1 million.

City Manager Anette Spickard previously said on Aug. 13 that the city collects about $615,000 per year in development impact fees, or 0.58% of the city’s $106.2 million current budget.

According to the city’s fiscal year 2025 budget, total spending on capital projects for the next 10 years will be $220,533,880, up from $51.4 million for a six-year capital plan in FY15. The largest components of this will be $79.9 million for street reconstruction projects and $64.3 million for a transit system.

“We have been paying for street improvements through the general fund,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

Whitehorn said that a fee increase would only cause “less of an impact to the general fund. I don’t know how significant that will be.”

“I’m not sure I would equate less funding with declining service,” Ploog said.

“You got more people using the same resources, it’s a declining level of service,” Councilman Pete Furman said.

Newly-elected Councilman Derek Pfaff suggested that the city “raise the fees to what we can get … and then, on a case-by-case basis, we’ll judge whether the city should be paying” to make sure the fees fall more heavily on less “desirable” projects. The city cannot waive development impact fees, but it can pay them on behalf of a property owner, if council determines a project offers a public benefit.

Furman said that he was leaning toward Pfaff’s proposal of “stroking a check on projects that we want … rather than mess with the math here.”

“That’s kind of the simplest way to get where we want to go,” Furman said.

“It frankly feels more punitive at the low end,” Fultz said. “We are discouraging multi-family.” He added that he was “not concerned” about the fees’ effect on hotels. “I’m not sure I even care that much about single-family.”

“We’re pushing people out,” Ploog said, and stated that she would prefer lower fees for smaller units and higher fees for larger ones.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said that the proposed fee structure would give a disproportionate advantage to builders of large single-family homes.

“I don’t think we’re going to work our way out of our housing problem in single-family homes,” Furman said. “It’s really about multi-family … and we need to communicate with the development community.”

“We’re not going to solve it with more small single-unit houses,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said, and added she did not want smaller, more affordable units to benefit from lower fees because she was afraid they would be used as short-term rentals.

Mayor Scott Jablow said limiting single-family development would make it more difficult for more retirees to move to Sedona.

Whitehorn also provided what she said were representative cost estimates for recently-permitted homes within Sedona, ranging from $300,000 for a 1,000-square-foot home to $1 million for a 2,050-square-foot home, exclusive of land costs. Whitehorn said that the proposed development fees accounted for between 3.1% and 1.5% of the homes’ costs, up from 1.5% and 0.7% at current levels, respectively.

Arriving at these conclusions, Whitehorn said, took some filtering.

“I didn’t use the ones that said it was only like $120 per square foot, because I found that unreasonably low,” Whitehorn said. “Steve [Mertes] and Laura [Stewart] in community development told me that it more likely was closer to like $700 a square foot.” In the end, she chose projects priced at between $280 and $490 per square foot.

Fultz pointed out that the updated fee on an accessory dwelling unit of the maximum size allowed, which is 750 square feet, would be $9,400.

Spickard told council that she would try to draft alternate proposals for multi-family fees “that you can pick at the next meeting,” which is currently planned for Tuesday, Nov. 26. Adoption of the proposed increased fees is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 14.

Sedona City Council holds up Posse Grounds flagpole to check size and height – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council considered the possible installation of a permanent flagpole at Posse Grounds Park on Oct. 22, and will return to the question at some unspecified point in the future, after Mayor Scott Jablow and Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella moved to continue the proposal to avoid its being voted down in a possible 3-3 vote. Tied votes automatically fail.

The request for a permanent flagpole was initially made by Councilman Pete Furman, who was absent, and was presented to council by Jack Ross, president of the Sedona Area Veteran and Community Outreach nonprofit.

“There was fears that it could block a view that’s called the million-dollar view during weddings,” Ross said, but added that SAVCO members and Parks and Recreation Department coordinator Jason Vargo had been able to agree on a location considered to be minimally obstructive.

“Our hope is that the city would procure the flagpole, city maintenance would install it and we, SAVCO, would work with parks and recreation to maintain it,” Ross explained. He proposed a 30-foot-tall flagpole with a light “for about $2,800,” flying four-foot-by-six-foot flags that would have to be replaced every six months.

“This happens to be the same height as the one at the military park,” Ross said, and pointed out that the temporary flagpole SAVCO installed for a Memorial Day event had been 25 feet high. For comparison, the Barbara Antonsen Memorial Pavilion stands 24 feet 7 inches tall. Ross also urged buying a model with an internal hoist: “If everything’s on the outside, there’s a danger of kids coming by at night and go, hey, let’s get a flag from Sedona.”

“Why can’t you just have it at — whatever the approved level is — height?” outgoing Councilwoman Jessica Williamson asked. City code limits flagpoles to 22 feet in height.

“How small do you want it? The pavilion’s pretty big,” Ross said. “The flag is pretty big, four by six, so the smaller the flagpole, it just doesn’t look right, like being on a fishing pole … 25 is pretty small.”

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella was concerned about the light’s appearance as viewed from neighboring homes.

“It would blend right in about the same height that they can see the pavilion from a lot of those houses,” Parks and Recreation Manager Josh Frewin said. “It would definitely be visible from those homes. So the light would be visible to homes below as well.”

“It’s not a light that spreads out,” Ross said.

“Have you actually talked to the people who will have to look at this from their back porches?” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn asked. “Even though it points down, it still reflects out.”

“We have not, for that,” Frewin said. He said an alternative would be to install a permanent pole without flying a flag except during events, but “in my opinion, just having the pole stand there by itself for 363 days of the year would be a worse look.”

“I certainly support a flag at this location … but why wouldn’t we just go with a 22-foot limitation?” Kinsella said.

“They’re built in five-foot increments,” Ross said.

“So you’re saying that the 22-foot limitation would actually mean that we would have a 20-foot pole and that you feel that’s insufficient?” Kinsella asked.

“Certainly,” Ross said. He then agreed that a 25-foot permanent pole would be “acceptable” and suggested the possibility of flying a second flag from the pole “if you wanted more use out of that.”

“I prefer the option of having the temporary flag put up on occasions where it’s appropriate,” Williamson said. “I would only support up to 25” for a permanent pole.

Kinsella agreed, stating that she would not be able to support a permanent installation due to the lack of neighborhood outreach so far.

“I support the ask as asked, no exceptions or need for alterations,” Councilman Brian Fultz said.

“Dark sky-compliant lighting doesn’t matter if the flags themselves are meant to be reflective,” Dunn said. “I am concerned about reflectivity at night, because that is a violation of dark sky to some extent … there are a lot of homes that are nearby and would see it. I would assume they wouldn’t be offended but I don’t know that, so I would appreciate if we just have a conversation with the neighborhood.”

Jablow and Vice Mayor Holli Ploog both supported the SAVCO proposal as written.

“I don’t see a difference between 25 or 30,” Jablow said. He then proposed withdrawing the item for the moment because “I don’t want it to fail.”

“A motion to continue the item would be best,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said, which was then proposed by Kinsella and seconded by Williamson.

Dunn asked to clarify that the vote was postponed due to Furman’s absence.

“That’s correct, ” Ploog said.

“It was Pete’s idea,” Jablow said.

Council approved the motion to continue 4-2, with Fultz and Ploog opposed.

City moves to swat private sport courts – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council held a work session on Oct. 9 at which council members supported creating new regulations for pickleball courts located on private property.

The session followed complaints made by several Chapel area residents during the public comment period at the Sept. 24 City Council meeting. They objected to the ongoing construction of a private pickleball court in the neighborhood, stating that noise from pickleball play would be hazardous to their and their dogs’ health.

“Our current Land Development Code does not have any regulations and we have never had any regulations in regard to sport courts,” Planning Manager Cari Meyer said. “We generally consider them in same way we’ve considered concrete patios, or concrete slabs in a backyard, which are allowed without a permit,” although she noted that additional construction features, such as fences, grading or lighting, might require permits.

“Since we don’t have a permit specifically for a sport court, we don’t have a record of necessarily how many there are in the city,” Meyer continued. Using aerial photography, city staff counted two existing sports courts at Los Abrigados Resort and Poco Diablo Resort, four in homeowners’ associations and seven at private homes. Five of the courts at private homes are for tennis, one is for basketball and one is for pickleball.

“We also looked at the code enforcement history of each of these properties, and we did not find anything related to noise or the use of the courts,” Meyer said.

“Anything that’s constructed that’s legally permitted at the time it’s constructed would be grandfathered,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson stated. “If, for example, the city decides to adopt a new setback of 200 feet from property lines, all existing courts are not going to have to be torn out.”

With regard to noise, Meyer pointed out that “the city obviously has just overarching noise regulations for the entire community, regardless of what you’re doing on the property.”

Christianson added that an additional code provision allows subjective citation of individuals if they produce “any noise that disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood.”

“As Cari mentioned, apparently none of the neighbors have complained about the existing courts,” Christianson said.

“That is an enforcement opportunity that we do have even for any of these grandfathered properties,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. He asked if the city could impose an emergency moratorium on court construction, possibly using the mayor’s emergency powers, “so we don’t have anybody hurrying up and coming in and trying to get another court started … Is this an emergency of the health and welllbeing of the public?”

“We don’t have any true emergency here,” Christianson said. “The regulations that are being proposed by Public Works and the City Attorney’s Office could support would be reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, and not outright bans anyway, because that’s all the data supports.”

“Is there any way that we would be able to require people to put in mitigation for existing courts?” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn asked.

“Generally, no,” Christianson said. “Generally, they’re going to be grandfathered.”

“If no one has complained about the existing courts, wouldn’t it be a stretch to require mitigation for something that isn’t an issue?” outgoing Councilwoman Jessica Williamson asked.

“We need to think comprehensively about this,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said, suggesting that council needed to head off any possible future changes in residents’ sporting preferences or recreation patterns that could require future regulation.

“I’m worried about small tournaments in places with multiple courts,” Kinsella added before proposing limits on the number of courts an individual could have.

Resident Becky Hofer had claimed at the Sept. 24 meeting that noise of 110 decibels was recorded “at the paddle,” and reiterated the claim on Oct. 9. Per the inverse square law, a 110 dB sound diminishes at a distance of 26.35 feet to 60 dB, the city’s noise limit for residential areas as measured “at the exterior line of a property.”

Resident Craig Swanson said pickleball was “qualitatively and quantitatively” different from other sports and described the noise as “unbearable,” and said the city could be sued by somebody “who’s driven crazy” by the noise.

“I don’t want to prohibit people from having fun,” Williamson said. “We have to accept a certain amount of noise in our neighborhood. I don’t believe anybody has to accept pickleball.” She then called pickleball play “unique assaults” and “insufferable” and said council should avoid complications by regulating pickleball courts and play only, rather than sport courts in general.

Furman called for a focus on “percussive noise sports” and termed pickleball “particularly disturbing,” while Kinsella suggested additional restrictions that she said would be “reasonable regulations,” including setback requirements for courts and requirements for size, screening and lighting.

“I want us to help the neighbors as aggressively as possible to require mitigation and if necessary to assist in the property owner being cited,” Fultz said, and supported more pickleball-focused regulation “as quickly as possible.” Dunn said she wanted a “broader” ordinance to cover all percussive sports.

“I’d like to get ahead of the curve on pickleball,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said, saying that she was “completely in support” of more regulation.

“Tennis is damn annoying, but so is basketball,” said Mayor Scott Jablow, who also said he wanted noise limits and setback requirements. “That noise of the pickleball is so much more invasive.”

Part of the city’s agenda packet read, “While much of the discussion has been about pickleball, the city cannot single out ‘pickleball’ and adopted regulations would apply to all sport courts.”

Ploog supported a future inquiry into whether the city should lower its daytime and nighttime noise limits to 55 and 45 dB, respectively. Council “should evaluate whether or not our noise ordinance code … actually fits what we want for our community,” Dunn added.

Meyer said that it would take staff three to four months to draft more restrictive sport court regulations and go through the process required to amend the Land Development Code to enact those regulations.

The mayor and city staff officially opened eight pickleball courts at Posse Grounds Park on Oct. 22.